Science hurts. And not just a little. And every step of the way. Take, for
example, the pain of getting a new idea. Let's not kid ourselves, this can
hurt — and it should. If we fashion ourselves as mental athletes (in a
way, but without the endorsement deals), we think until we hit the wall
(“There are no new ideas!”) and then, like the
intellectual marathon runners we are, we cogitate through the wall to come up
with that great idea. And we sigh with relief, jot it down, look at it every
which way, and then show pictures of it to all our friends (“Oh. Um.
Yes, it's beautiful.”). Then the experiment works a little, teases us,
sends us (or one of our friends) back to try again and again. And again
(“Three times, please!”). Then it does work, but... the
controls don't (“Ouch!”). Then everything works
(“Yay!”) and the next time it doesn't (“Ouch,
ouch!”).

Finally, it works consistently, sort of, and we show all our friends
(“Yes, very beautiful, but you knew it was going to work,
right? You must be so proud.”) So we write (“Ouch!”). Each
word in our wonderful manuscript is like bleeding onto the page. But, finally,
several units of blood later, it's finished, and some of our friends don't
hate it (“Yes, fine, I sort of looked at it — looks great.”)
We send it off. And wait. And wait.

And just when we've forgotten that we'd even submitted the damned thing, we
get the reviews. Screwed. Should have used a different system. Should have
done a different control. Should have been on a different planet. Doesn't mean
anything, and what we think it means is wrong. We've been done. Wounded and
disheartened, we drag ourselves back to the bench to do it all again. You know
where this is going — no you don't, stay with me here.

And of course the money is running out. So we bleed some more and write a
grant (“Ouch!”), and say how lovely all this might
someday be. And by now the second set of reviews on the paper are in
(“Just a bit better. Ouch!”). And of course the grant is
destroyed, and we lick our wounds and do it again.

Of course, it's our friends and colleagues who are murdering us at each
turn. And we can't wait to do it to someone else. But that isn't my point
here. My question, for the tortured among us, is this: why do we do it? Why do
we put up with how miserably hard science is, and do it anyway?

Here's why, I think. It's because we're scientists. Like artists, we
need to create. And the pain? Well, creating hurts. Doing something
new is unbearably hard. And when we're at our best (and sometimes we are, but
still without the endorsement deals) the result is a thing of beauty. Complete
strangers can see how beautiful it is. Okay, it isn't always a masterpiece.
But sometimes it is.

So we don't do it for the money (what money?). We don't do it for fame or
glory (What fame? What glory?) We create because it's what we do. We have
to.

When a student asks me whether they should be a scientist, my answer is
always this: “If I were a wonderfully successful sculptor, and you were
a talented young artist asking me if sculpting was something you should do,
I'd give the same answer — What? Are you nuts! Go get a good job that
doesn't hurt all the time! Make some real money. Have a life!”

But the good ones ignore me. Just like I ignored my professor who gave me
the same excellent advice when I was a young mole-let. We go into this (or
should) because it is something that we need to do. So we do.

Here's the moral. When you have a good idea, celebrate it. When the
experiment works, celebrate it. When the paper finally gets in, then
definitely celebrate it. And if the grant comes through, celebrate! Right
away, now! Before the next huge disappointment. Remember, for a little while,
why we do this. Raise your glasses high. And our toast? TO THE PAIN!

Similar articles

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Our resident columnist, Mole, uses Star Wars to illuminate why graduate students feel their future looks like a storm complete with sideways rain, and how to be good mentor rather than an agent of the Dark Side.

iPSCs may be a new source for obtaining HSCs. In their review, Fabiola A. de Castro and colleagues discuss the challenges involved in reprogramming, and the role of microRNAs in iPSC generation and HSC differentiation.

“…one of the best parts of this job: people from different places working together for a common goal.”

Susana and her research group at the Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, investigate how tumour progression is affected by the presence of extra centrosomes in a cancer cell, and how these cancer cells employ mechanisms to adapt to supernumerary centrosomes. She shares her thoughts on the broader impact of her research and the challenges of starting a new lab.